It was the spirit of my long-deceased friend, James Jesus Angleton, whom I’d reached via ouija board for what I hoped would be a highly informative conversation, but the way he spat out that phrase suggested I may have asked the wrong question. I wanted to know if he’d had the chance to talk to Osama bin Laden’s ghost, and yes, I knew that if Angleton said “yes” it would finally tell me where he was residing.

ML: “Sorry, I didn’t mean it that way, but you know there are lots of questions about the operation that sent him away from this level.”

JJA: “And how! We can talk about it, love to. It’s a counter-intelligence playground, there are scads of different ways to interpret it. But the version from the White House is probably one of the least likely, and the fact that they’ve changed their story — including key details — suggests that they wanted to cover up the genesis of the operation.”

ML: “You mean you don’t believe the story about tracking the courier?”

JJA: “Well, duh, of course we tracked couriers. But unless you sit down and talk to the courier, and unless you decide to believe what he says, just watching a courier doesn’t give you operational intelligence, like the floor plan of the villa and the number of people inside, and the condition of the target and are there weapons there, blah blah.”

ML: “So you’re saying that we needed a human source?”

JJA: “At least one, maybe more. It’s best if you have more than one, it gives you some confidence that your information is accurate.”

ML: “And that source or sources? Who could they be?”

JJA: “Just to be precise, we should not be so antiseptic in our language. I’m saying that Osama was betrayed. Somebody who knew the details — or maybe several somebodies — delivered him to us. So the question is, who betrayed him? And why?”

ML: “Good, now we’re getting someplace. And then there’s another question, a very big question: what did we pay the traitor?”

JJA: “Right, that’s always a key issue in espionage.”

ML: “Yeah, the spooks love to talk about their tradecraft, about how potential recruits have weaknesses, some want money, some want sex, some are in it for political or ideological motives…”

JJA: “Don’t pay too much attention to stories about recruitment. The most important agents are usually walk-ins. We didn’t recruit a single major spy during the Cold War; they came to us. Every last one of them…”

ML: “Well you should know! So who walked in?”

JJA: “Probably the Paks. They work with lots of AQ terrorists, as we know. Second choice: A high-ranking al-Qaeda person, someone of the stature of a Zawahiri.”

ML: “The Paks? But everyone in Washington is saying that we were being taken for a ride by the Paks. They had to know bin Laden was in that villa, but they never told us. The bastards were taking our money at the same time they were protecting our number one target.”

JJA: “Yes, yes. Which means they had the opportunity to betray him.”

ML: “Why would they want to do that if they were in cahoots with him?”

JJA: “There are many possible reasons. One is that things were going badly with us — look at all the tough language coming from the likes of General Petraeus and from leading members of Congress and several spoon-fed journalists — and the gift of bin Laden would make for a happier Obama administration.”

ML: “A happier America, in fact.”

JJA: “Precisely so. The Paks don’t want to lose all that money, and an angry America at a time of huge budget deficits is risky for them.”

ML: “So we promise to continue the cash flow in exchange for bin Laden?”

heard Ladeen on the Dennis Prager show – it’s a fascinating theory. The only way to confirm it is if the predictions come true, but unfortunately, given Obama’s propensity to shut down the military anyway, I think his getting us out of Afghanistan would be almost certain despite this theory. It would be supported if Obama resisted all attempts to cut off aid to Pakistan, despite the official story. If time won’t tell, someday the heavens will have the answer.

Oh boy.
A LOT of interesting angles here.
I haven’t the resources to judge about any of this but it is extraordinarily interesting. I guess that in the next few months we will be able to verify at least some of these hypotheses.

I can only add that this administration policy has always been to take no prisoners: they say that they want to close Guantanamo and give full rights to the terrorists under trial…but they always killed with drones all the terrorists they could find OUTSIDE of Guantanamo.
Lots of people have been making jokes about this in the last two years…

It seems to me that so many successful drone attacks can be explained that way. It is highly unlikely that the Pakis were in the dark about OBL’s location. They get nothing from AQ, they get 2B+ per year from the US… the rest is just connecting the dots.

That is exactly what I am saying. AQ cannot print trillions like Benny and the Jets. the Pakis are not dumb and they know AQ is a fly-by-night operation. They are just keeping them busy. Today (see the Telegraph) the Pakis are admitting they had the zone sealed off the night of the raid. I am shocked! Arrest the usual suspects!

If they’re being paid handsomely just so we could look for someone then what happens when that someone is found? End of cash flow. Compare the reward. 50 million to find Osama 2 billion to keep him well hidden and preserve the cash flow. You know if I controlled 2 billion a year no one is gonna find him and live to tell about it. So who spilled the beans?

Mr. Ledeen: The Great American Retreat = Ending incursions into Pakistan? It may well constitute a retreat if that is an absolute end and nothing else. But why would you title that as you have. Or, do you have something greater in mind? You don’t seem to say. If, as you suggest, this represents AQ shifting its focus from Afghanistan to Egypt and Yemen, what’s to prevent the US from shifting as well: a condominium in which the Paks are conceded greater autonomy in Afghanistan in exchange for Bin Laden and the understanding that AQ (and the US) take their principal fight elsewhere?

Another theory: Bin Laden was delivered by the ISI; his usefulness had run its course. ISI hopes to cause a rift between US and Pak military; hopes to have China, a rival of India and the US, replace US as protector of Pakistan.

As I told Catino as long as we gave them 2 billion a year to operate in Pakistan then Osama is worth 2 billion/year alive to the ISI or whoever controls those funds. Ledeen is saying we had to threaten cutting off the money supply if we don’t find him soon. Go home and call it a day. Well, it looks like they blinked and offered a deal. Now they can retain the aid and we could go home. But really, all the technology and weaponry we created must find a place where it could be used. WE HAVE CREATED A REALITY OF ENDLESS CONFLICT. When one ends another will take its place. Is this what our founding fathers had in mind when they created America? We have increased police forces throughout our cities especially New York to address the terror threat. In the absence of terrorists won’t it be us who are terrorized by the constant bombardment of surveillance police presence and pat downs wherever we go? Will there be a time when we aren’t in a state of heightened alert? And what about the implications of added police forces and heightened alerts? It reminds me of Germany circa 1933.

It serves a president well to have wars and to be a self proclaimed war hero. He can be against wars and still gain approval by conducting them in disgust. Why would he want to end them if there is political gain to be made.
The rest of your narrative is more Ouija than usual. If this is about an American retreat fro the Mideast, then what is the downside of the Arab spring if those characters are too busy destroying themselves? We are bombing Libya for humanatarian reasons?

Interesting, but how does this square with the news that Guantanamo prisoners provided crucial intellegence? If bin Laden was handed to the U.S. by an insider (or even if he wasn’t) it would seem that the administration would dismiss any credit given to Gitmo interrogation results unless this fact is the undeniable truth. I’m quite sure there’s more to this than the WH and the military will ever disclose, but I’m not sure that this whole thing was as complex as “JJA” suggests. It would make a great Matt Damon movie, though.

LOL! What if bin Laden is actually still alive and singing? This was recently posted on Free Republic:

OBLs Faked Death: The Real Story

[snip]

“Here’s what really happened. OBL was taken down on the third floor, that’s true. He was cornered and then jacked up. He was then, deliberately in front of hysterical witness, shot in the face and head with red 9mm paintball “simunitions” out of an MP5. Real blood was thrown around for effect. In the crazy glare of battle lights it all looked quite realistic, and the witnesses will go to their graves believing they saw OBL killed in front of them.”

“But that didn’t happen. He was stunned, knocked out with a hand taser, then hooded and bagged and dragged out to the helos. Then a dummy was “buried at sea” in his place, no photos are going to be released, and here we are. The world believes OBL is dead, so the agency and foreign interrogators don’t have to be gentle with him during his prolonged “debriefing” in a secret safehouse prison with only one guest.”

One thing that seemed interesting to me was the release that we had collected a large amount of intelligence at the scene. We could have just as easily said something a little more circumspect such as “we didn’t find as much as we had hoped” or maybe even “the mission was to get bin Laden and get out”.

That we have not been the least bit secretive of the fact that we received this large amount of information might be an indication that we aren’t worried about Zawahiri “getting away” and would tend to validate the story portrayed in this posting. Wherever Zawahiri was on Sunday, we can be pretty sure he wasn’t still there by Tuesday, if he is hiding in Pakistan.

Obama wants to bring ‘peace with honor’ to Afghanistan in advance of the 2012 election. The Pakistanis want to control Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda wants an Islamic Afghanistan. Many Afghans contend that the ‘Taliban’ is funded and supported and ‘run’ by the Pakistanis.

The Pakistanis agree to give up Bin Laden who dies a martyr (inverted win for him). Obama declares victory and begins withdrawing US forces from a suddenly peaceful Afghanistan (an election year win for him). Around, say, January 2013 a resurgent Taliban overruns Afghanistan (a win for Pakistan which now de facto controls Afghanistan). Hamid Karzai’s burial is not nearly so circumspect as Bin Laden’s (loss for him). Al Qaeda gets the restoration of an Islamic State in Afghanistan (they win their playground back plus a chance to refocus on Egypt). Thats a win for Obama, Osama, Pakistan, the Taliban, and Al Qaeda, a loss for Karzai. Still that is just as many wins as Charlie Sheen has appendages. Just as many losses as we all have…opinions.

As more and more details are revealed, clarified, and denied concerning the Navy SEALs’ take-down of Osama bin Laden, it’s becoming vividly clear that America’s Commander-in-Chief is not all he pretends to be and nowhere near all he thinks he is. Obama’s refusal today to release any pictures or videos of the operation only serves to underscore this president’s ambivalence and indecisiveness.

His Sunday night announcement that agents of America’s Special Ops had finally located and killed OBL provided carefully-scripted appearances that President Barack Hussein Obama was the man in charge from the bloody start to the watery finish. Despite his self-congratulatory words and his repetitive usage of the pronoun “I,” it turns out that not only did Obama not make the call to assault bin Laden’s Abbotabad compound but in fact he was overruled, in effect a figurehead.

As usual with this president, things are not always what they appear to be or how he wants us to believe they are, not even close.

The sensitive mission was a go until Obama decided to go to bed rather than make the final call. As Britain’s Daily Mail, which is not a member of Obama’s state-controlled media, reports, ”The president stunned officials when he told a national security meeting that he wanted more time to think–and disappeared out of the room.” The Mail cites the New York Times in adding that Obama said, “I’m not going to tell you what my decision is now–I’m going to go back and think about it some more. I’m going to make a decision soon:” http://bit.ly/kHFaPX

Good grief – talk about irresponsible speculation. This is all the worst sort of conspiracy crap that clogs the internet. I begin to wonder about Mr. Ledeen’s bona fides – does he really know so little about how intelligence and military action works? Get a grip.

We traded bin Laden’s death, which JJA claims is basically as important as a historic photo-op, so… AQ could relocate to Egypt? And start a hundred times more trouble? So the Paks could continue to receive their $2 Billion and F-16s?

So… we’re just going to forgive the Paks the 6 years living next to West Pointabad?

Why is this theory more credible than my theory that the real problem is that Pakistan is protected by China and Taliban drug trafficking is facilitated by Russia – and all our problems stem from the fact that both of these nations cannot be attacked directly by the United States, nor can their allies, like Syria?

Why is everyone so reluctant to believe that the real problem isn’t the guerrilla nature of the situation, but the two nuclear-weapons Communist death stars in North and East Asia?

And all this for Obama’s reelection chances? Guys. I don’t like Obama either, but come on.

If what Osama’s daughter said is true, i.e. Osama bin Laden was captured alive (if so he would have been “body searched” to make certain he had no weapons) then his killing is murder in cold blood. The President claims that he insisted on the death of Osama. Is Obama, the President of the United States, guilty of murder?

I suspect he wasn’t actually “captured” in our definition of the term.

And, btw, as much as I dislike most of what our President does, if he had killed Osama in cold blood (or done it by proxy), I’m quite all right with that. And, no, he’s not guilty of murder. See the old American cultural tradition of “Wanted: Dead or Alive.” That applies to mass-murderers. Anywhere. Or, are you saying that American culture doesn’t count? Seems that might be a bit racist.

Strategically, I’m not at all worried that this major victory–the end of Osama bin Laden–could lead to an American retreat. Quite the contrary.

There’s an old saying: Nothing succeeds like success. When you’re successful, you’re emboldened to keep on being successful. And everybody else wants to jump on your bandwagon.

Victories don’t lead to retreats. Defeats lead to retreats.

In the 1970′s, America’s strategic retreat from confronting the USSR was as the result of America’s failure–not success–in the Vietnam War.

And by 2006, as the war in Iraq seemed to be going poorly, a lot of folks argued for giving up and going home.

Contrast those reactions with the reaction after World War II, and after the Gulf War of 1991–both major victories for America.

Oh sure, the hard-core ultra-Left (perhaps 10% of the American electorate) will use the death of Osama bin Laden as yet another excuse for demanding an American strategic retreat from the world. They have never wavered in that demand, in good times or bad, since the U.S. dropped the atom bomb on Hiroshima in 1945. These far Leftists will use any events as excuses for demanding this yet again.

But the rest of us won’t see it that way, guaranteed.

If Obama wants to continue the drone attacks in Pakistan, and continue to shore up Afghanistan and the no-fly zone in Libya, it will be difficult for Congress to say no. After all, most folks will figure, Obama just got Osama bin Laden–why shouldn’t he be given a chance to rack up some more wins?

Bravo Michael. Un teorema brillante. It is also very credible. I have forwarded it to a number of friends, who all were very impressed. Another fly in the ointment of the official explanation: Why the long delay between placing Osama’s hiding place under surveillance and the actual assault on the compound? Did it really take 8 months to confirm his identity and carefully plan the blitz? Didn’t such a long wait unnecessarily increase the risk that Osama would move elsewhere and disappear? Furthermore, if the capture of Osama were so important, why wait so long to accomplish it (leaving aside questions of political pressures to do so in the run-up prior to the November elections) ?

I suspect that if 0bama did wait sixteen hours before authorizing the raid, as has been reported, it was because he couldn’t decide whether to do it now, or hold off until just before re-election time and risk losing OBL.

The Ledeen/Toby Harden scenerio makes sense. Why would Obama (or anyone in a position of responsiblity) risk the killing or capture of the Navy Seals by the Pakistani military in such a potentially dangerous mission. ? A la Jimmy Carter’s failed hostage rescue mission in Iran in 1979. Especially when we could utilize drone attack on compound. The Pakistani military had to be in on this.

I dig this theory. It makes sense. But if we had a deal with the Paks to kill and only kill OBL, why honor it? What’s the downside in saying “Sure we’ll kill him,” and then capturing him alive and extracting all the information we can about ISI and their goings-on with the rest of the terror network?

Yeah, it doesn’t make sense if you have a competent president. It DOES make sense if you have one who is skittish about detaining anyone, and is against using any enhanced interrogation techniques. Additionally, what brought down his closest, most similar dem president? Islamists seizing American hostages, which would almost certainly happen if we had him in our possession.

Smashing AQ in Afghanistan is good in all ways but there have been a lot of rapid moves in the Middle East in recent months and the latest have been the killing of Bin Laden and the kiss and make up move between Hamas and Fatah. Coincidences? I don’t believe in coincidences in the Middle East. Also, Obama has made it pretty clear that he doesn’t like Israel. So yes, a concern about how all this will affect the Jews is quite justified in my view and I suspect Israel is looking at it in the same way.

I do repeat though that I think you have laid out a great line of thought in your article.

I am not familiar with stratospheric intrigue, but I can discern the possibility of a settlement of sorts: If there is a settlement, it has to be beneficial to all the parties at play, at least those who have some staying power. In that case, Al Qaeda would be the singular loser, the one party that is no longer able to contribute anything useful to anyone else in the neighborhood, and left with internecine fights, with no prospect of significant further accomplishment in the area. In short: Defeat. pure and simple.

Who could the long term players be? Talking about staying (with or without much power) would be a virtual Pashtu nation (Virtual in a way similar to the dreamed-of Kurdistan, part of which to be found in Iran, Turkey, Syria and Iraq!), on both sides of the huge mountain range between Pakistan and Afghanistan. In the aggregate, these two theoretically separate societies, are the landbase of the Taliban as well as the hypothetical Pashtusistan. What would they get? Possibly a modicum of autonomy, and the continuation of their long trading and smuggling industry.

What would the US get? The ability to disengage from Afghanistan with some appearance of honor, a big political boost for the POTUS and some short term relief for a battle fatigued nation?

What would Pakistan get? The continued cash flow from you, me and a couple more US tax payers, a sort of rental agreement buying their more or less adequate cooperation in keeping the pressure on the Jihadists in their midst.

Would any of this make sense? We may find out before too long. Remember, roughly some 9 years ago, the US was asking the Taliban to give away Bin Laden for leaving them alone. Their response at the time: OBL is not for sale! That was 10 years ago, I would say his stock is down, and the Pashtus still hold the strings!

We shall probably never know what kind of stinking excremets of political machinations has been wrapped in the glossy fabric of a succesful raid on Osama Bin Laden.

One has te be acknowledged above all.

For all the enemies of America, those domestic but above all FOREIGN, it is the most improtant strategic objective to PREVENT SARAH PALIN FROM BECOMING THE NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE US.

Even as Palin’s detractors are busy with ridiculing her, diminishing her, her enemies are perfectly aware that her ascendancy on the position of POTUS shall mean the most dramatic, tectonic shift in the world’s political, economic and military landscape and on the scale much bigger than that occured during the Reagan Presidency.

For that VERY REASON Islamofascists, Sino-fascists, Russo-fascists, Latino-fascists, Afro-fascists, eco-fascists, femino-fascists or whoever will apply any imaginable or even unimaginable trick to make Obama’s life easier and help him to win the 2012 election.

Even if that would mean to betray and deliver Bin Laden, the entire Al Qaida or even Talibans to the US military forces in order to boost Obama’s popularity.

Even if that would mean doing so without Obama’s knowledge or direct consent.

That means that one can attach ANY CRAP to the Bin Laden’s story and it still will be plausible because so many players are, probably, involved in that farce that its true nature shall never be known.

In that light, the death of Bin Laden, even if most welcome (praise the mervelous US military!!!), doesn’t make a littlest dent dent on the body of the world’s affairs.

If after almost three years of Obama’s deliberate drive to destroy America some 50% of the Yanks still regard him as a human one can coexist with, it is unmistakable sign that the America has degraded itself morally and imploded intellectually so deeply that no conservative political leader, no matter how professionaly and morally quallified, even as an outsanding human as SARAH PALIN, can win against Obama.

And that can only mean that America is GONE.

I hope that it is not the case.

However I compare America with my own EUNUCHALIA, where the collective mentality is vaguely similar.

Unfortunately the KANGAROOS are so mentally damaged that the local LEFTOIDS are winning no matter how incompetent and EVIL they are.

I can only hope that the YANKS are much more mature and will finally wake up from their AFFLUENCA induced stupor and reject Obama on behalf of Palin.

I agree with the Paki cooperaton scenario. As you said, it is the only explanation for the total absence of Paki military on-site. Besides there is no way O would have sanctioned the mission. The possibility of failure would have been totally unacceptable. Hell, you could smell O’s fear in that picture of the sit-rep room.

On the other hand, I think the Pakis were coerced at the highest levels after we traced the courier to Bin Laden’s hideout, so I see that as partly true. You know, stay as close to the truth as possible in your cover story. Anyway, it is strange to me how few people recognize the Paki compliance. It is the most obvious element in any scenario.

.. okay, that creature of wire, string, and foam known as “bin Laden” is dead (or *still dead* as the Late Benazir Bhutto might insist). how does this change anything? the roots of Jihadism as we know it today are pretty clear: Zbignew Brzezinski and the House of Saud. and had bin Laden retired following the Soviet retreat from Afghanistan, they’d have named a library in Peoria after him. but things change, alliances shift, towers crumble: the legacy of the modern Jihadi (sponsored – at least ideologically – by Saudi Arabia, home to the 200 year old Wahhabi cult) is “creative distruction” (in fact, not theory).

Beautiful and precise..This was my first impression as well which means
1) bin Ladens diminishing returns caught up to him
2) Obama gets a much needed shot in the arm right after announcing his election campaign
3) The terrorists are still calling the shots as they gave us no more than they were willing to give. We still play the game defensively. Pitiful.

Unfamiliar as I am with stratospheric intrigue, I nevertheless discern the possibility of a settlement of sorts, with potential benefits for all parties with some staying power. In that case, Al Qaeda would be the singular loser, the one party that is no longer able to contribute anything useful to anyone else in the neighborhood, simply left to its bitter internecine fights, in one word, defeated, for the second time.

Who could the long term players be? First, the present occupants of both sides of the Afghani-Paskitani border, separated by these huge mountains, but of the same basic cultural stock, some sort of Pashtunistan, so to speak: They would receive a modicum of autonomy with pakistani support, on the condition of renouncing their islamist ambitions, and stick with their traditional trading and smuggling industry.

What would the US get? The ability to disengage from Afghanistan with some appearance of honor, a big political boost for the POTUS and some short term relief for a battle fatigued nation?

What would Pakistan get? The continued cash flow from Uncle Sam, a sort of rental agreement buying their more or less adequate cooperation in the duty of keeping the pressure on the Jihadists in their midst.

Would any of this make sense? Remember, roughly some 9 years ago, the US was asking the Taliban to give away Bin Laden for the privilege of being left alone. Their response at the time: OBL is not for sale! In the meantime, a lot has changed, and the OBL stock has collapsed in the neighborhood. Could the spectacular raid be an element of window dressing for an unpalatable bargain? Sorry to contemplate, it might be.

There’s a lot that’s probable here. Likely the real story is in fact much more complicated than a simple “slip in and shoot the man” that we would be led to believe. For example: why would a CIA handler be needed? Why not run the op out of Petraeus’ office since they used DoD personnel?

Anyway, what we do know is that AQ and the Taliban have been on the out for a while, and the Pashtun locals have nothing but loathing for the “foreigners” of AQ mucking around their territory. Even if confirming intelligence came from a variety of sources: interrogations, courier movements, etc., Pakistan intelligence may have been involved in enabling the mission–as might Zawahiri even, for various reasons. Fighting in AfPak has long been a trap–just to some extent as Iraq was. Getting out of that would be a good thing for AQ.

Just, oddly enough, as it would be for the US. Afghanistan should never have become the involved affair it did: it’s a poster-child for “punitive expedition”, and if the US can find a spot to kill AQ on that doesn’t have the worst terrain and logistical profile on the planet, that would be nice.

On the OBL faked-death+kidnapping idea… this is what you read Tom Clancy for. It seems too clever by half to actually work, but I’ll be interested to hear if OBL’s daughter turns up missing/dead in a short while, and the other witnesses shortly thereafter. (Burying the patsies.)

If releasing the photos of Bin Laden’s dead body is a grave national security concern as the president said; and that doing so could imperil the lives of innocent US civilians and soldiers fighting terror in the field then why didn’t Obama keep the mission to kill bin Laden a secret? Why wasn’t it a covert operation with Obama denying any responsibility or connection to the deed? Does this make any sense? Could the release of gruesome photos with Bin Ladin’s face blown off be more of a national security risk than revealing the fact that we did it? That America was the executioner that struck the fatal blow? That the killing of bin Laden was a US operation from start to finish with the President calling the shots? How does releasing photos that Al Qaida could easily fake for deceiving the ignorant be more dangerous than going public with the operation? Which of the two puts US lives at more risk? Indeed, the disconnect between Obama suppressing the photos but not info on the mission is so wide and bewildering that you can drive a galaxy through it……..

ML, Seems to me that OBL was getting old and if he croaked on his own, there would be no $50 M reward for the ISI, and the associated vigorish. Likely they sold him while he was worth something, not to discount other reasons.

Who really believes this outright lie? The Obama/Clinton regime is infamous for flacking lie after lie. There is no proof that they killed Osama at all. Like the reports of the economy improving and the Biden/Obama creation of two million jobs; the so called flu epidemic, ad nauseum. This regime and the people in the US government are highly paid liars.

So what about all those computer hard drives, files, emails, etc.? Anything incriminating there or just a semi-fictional account signifying nothing but what these devious bastards want us to hear? I don’t know. This is an interesting speculation, perhaps better than most, but it’s a little early to jump to conclusions. Either way, that the Middle East hucksters can manipulate the Western mindset to further their own ends should be no surprise. They’ve been doing it for decades.

the first thing i thought was now hand over the egyptian but have not heard a word out of the white house on that subject–Al Zawhari has always wanted to focus on egypt and only reluctantly joined forces w/Bin Laden

weren’t the helicopters flown out of a base in Pakistan–it took 40 minutes before anyone arrived after a helicopter is blown up in a garrison town

Two of the three men shown in the Reuters photos are lying on the floor on their backs. Each appears to have received one bullet wound, in the face just above the chin. The Reuters photos disclose no evidence that any one of the three was armed. There are troubling questions raised by the photographs. Are we a nation “under God” whose currency bears phrase “In God We Trust”, or have we abandoned these principles for an ad hoc policy which suits he convenience of whomever the President may be at the time?

Nice story. Plausible. One thing I have a question about is the disks and other information which was reportedly found in the complex. Since they had no computers or telephones why would they have any disks at all? Also, if they had disks which might out more AQ’s leaders why would we announce it? Wouldn’t it behoove us to keep quiet? It doesn’t make sense. My belief is that they have no info but they want to see who might be running in fear.

What do we know about the three men whose bodies appear in the Reuters’ photographs? Do we know anyhting about them? Were they members of an inner coterie, involved in the crimes committed by Osama bin Laden? Or were they unfortunate in happening to be in his presence when the U S Navy Seals arrived? They are human beings! What about their deaths? These questions will reverberate not just in the world of Islam; they will be debated in the United States and in the western world as well. The President claims credit for insisting on Osama’s body, not Osama in person. The President has acted on the principle that the issue will die with his appearance at ground Zero. On the contrary it will haunt him during his campaign for reelection; and whether he is reelected or not, it will remain a debatable issue for some time to come.

The tacit Pakistani cooperation during the action is an important datum, but it does not prove Pakistan was in full knowledge of the operation or its purpose.

My guess is that the Pakistanis were warned (just soon enough to get the word to their police and troops in Abbottabad) that a U.S. op was going in against an important jihadist target and to stay clear.

That doesn’t show they knew what the target was. Nor that they fingered Osama for us. I’m going to post here what I’ve already posted several places:

Pakistan is a violent Third World country, where most important and
wealthy men live in semi-fortified compounds. There was nothing remarkable about the Osama house.

And in that part of the world, private homes are *very* private, by long tradition. Kipling, writing of 19th century Lahore, called it “the City where each man’s house is as guarded and unknowable as the grave.”

And it is clear that Al-Qaeda maintained very tight security around it. No phone or internet connection, and only one ultra-trusted courier going in and out.

No guards to speak of. That kept down the number of Al-Qaeda who knew. Also, U.S. analysts assumed Osama’s location would have lots of guards, so the Abbottabad house escaped notice.

The Abbottabad location was clever: an area under firm Pakistani control, and therefore *not* focused on by U.S. intelligence which has a HUMINT net all through the border area. (Bing West said that AQ is so worried that no more than two of them ever meet in public.)

If anyone outside AQ’s inner circle knew where he was, we’d have heard.

Another point against Pakistan having sold Osama to the U.S.: if they did it, wouldn’t they want the credit? As it is, they are getting a lot of stick from Americans for allegedly sheltering him, and a lot of stick from jihadis for letting us get him, and no credit from anyone.

Yet another point: there are certainly jihadi sympathizers in the Pakistani regime. If the regime knew where he was, and decided to tell us, and cooperated in the raid – there would almost certainly be a warning leak. Accidental, if not deliberate – their security is mediocre.

I guess I’m naive, but I think the official story is about right.

I don’t put any stock in the claims that Osama’s death was faked. The Obamacrats got burned on the not-trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed; Osama alive would have to be tried, a huge headache. They’ve preferred to kill jihadists in general.

That’s enough reason. The idea that he was silenced to prevent incriminating whoever is weak; the documents and computer files seized from the house will do that anyway.

With the latest intel provided by OBL’s wives it looks like the firefight was virtually non-existant. Stun grenades had them all reeling. I doubt the SEAL’s brought shotguns along for the ride. Pakistani compliancy shrinks under the weight of this. Looking at this from the money angle we now know AQ’s funds were shrinking and AQ was splitting up into 2 factions. Someone has to be getting money from someone in order to out OBL. I doubt it was us. Perhaps someone with Saudi ties or Yemeni ties. Perhaps one faction stood to control AQ and with OBL out of the picutre the money flow would then be theirs. Instead of 100 dollars perhaps only 20 million to continue operations. OBL would be too constricting holed up in some faraway land. New planners need freedom to operate. So they are set to get money from whomever, they need to get rid of OBL so they say psst America OBL is here. Now since they need to remain unidentified they do it in a way to keep themselves unknown yet credible enough so that the SEALs can do what they do. If the Pakistanis stand to lose 2 billion if America packs up the show there is no reason for them to out OBL. It’s like killing the Golden Goose. The intel provided by the hierarchy of captured AQ members becomes worthless over time. KSM’s testimony can’t tell us where OBL is going and of any new AQ members. Zawahiri is probably next unless he’s the outer. Personally I think someone new is looming who will probably create some spectacular “scenes”. Just my opinion.

It is very clear that bin Laden was an American industry in particular by the failing CIA despite I do not believe in the conspiracy theory. Yes, America had a few of misguided policies that have brought it into its current predicament. America supported Islamic violent extremist groups as “Taliban” by money and weapon, and today they chase after them, where they spend a huge numbers of millions of dollars in order to get them and also as financial aids to the Islamic extremist countries just for the futile cooperation on the same pattern with the Taliban in the 80s. In general the USA is a pretty great in granting the huge financial rewards for getting the heads of their friends of the radicals who have invited them to Washington.
However we know that in 1980s most of the seniour leaders of Taliban or today aka al-Qaeda were welcomed in the White House. Because they can not face the enemy directly, so they searching for potential recruits who are eager for death or for money from weak people those who have NO human values or principles in order to fight instead of them…those who despise and detest the U.S. and Israel, those who despise the West and its values, who call them in the sons of apes and pigs, and loathe to see them. nevertheless the Muslim fanatic radical leaders were welcomed happily in the great halls of the great country or so-called (the Great America).
If you truly aware that Saudis and the Syrians wanted your previous friend Bin Laden dead it’s very clear they hiding something in their intimate relationship with al-Qaeda! if so why do you continue in embracing of the deceit royal family? But no wonder until the events of 9/11 the USA didn’t press adequately on their friends and allies of Saudis to strangulate Islamic fundamentalism and to change of education curriculums of hatred and scorn that has bred terrorists.
Finally, I believe that the misguided policies today is most probably they are supporting the Libyan rebels who are anti-Gaddafi is no doubt this group is also an criminal gang. Let alone the criminal radical Islamic group called “the Muslim Brotherhood”. What the great “James Angleton” do thinks about all of this?

As for the role of Mr. Obama in killing Osama bin Laden! In fact Mr. Obama has never uttered in his honeyed speeches a term (war on terrorism) but he today is trading on the account of the great ideas of those who have started the war on terrorism. It’s very clear that Mr. Obama has done nothing for the war on terrorism, he always is against it. As we know he was/is always sympathetic with the terrorist groups and Islamists especially regarding Guantanamo’s thugs and yet he feels today that he is “the Great Hero”…So I hope that Mr. Obama not taking bows now for the heroic work of the US Army. In fact the real heroes are (Mr. Bush’s Admin) but NOT this coward admin…this is purely absurd, and it’s highly upsetting me!!!

It is a very slow process to understand how much of American Government is in the hands of, or owes much to, the left. The thinking in this article is this claim’s proof.

The dialogue is about speculations, and it captures perfectly how in real life much of the dialogue is speculation because I believe the dialogue is very realistic. And the problem with the dialogue is it has no foundation on which to define threats to American security and how to project American Sovereignty and protect American Security. We once did but, under the influence of the left, we no longer do.

An example – the speculation, in one of the posts, that perhaps someone in Yemen gave bin Laden away. Yemen is one of the countries, Somalia on the other side of the gulf being another, that is now, and for a long while has been, peppered with all sorts of terrorist training camps.

We should have taken all of them out long ago – a fundamental (and I would think by now obvious) requirement of American security. In the same manner when terrorists were allowed access to Pakistan we should have taken decisive action – doable intelligence would easily have established where they were. And if they were in cities – well I hate to tell you,and as gruesome as this sounds,take out the city.

We are forever chasing terrorists. The left thinks we have created them by our evil. We have not. We have created them by being lenient. If America interests when pursued causes people to attack us, then American Sovereignty requires a victory over them.

We are, in fact, not their enemy. They are ours. Pakistan is its own country. We have no right to harm Pakistan, and Pakistan has no right to harm us. If they do, we have to put an end to it quickly and decisively. We do have a right not to be harmed by Pakistan, whether the Pakistanis know it or not.

And it doesn’t matter what their thinking is, what group they have alliances with, or – for that matter – what courses they teach in their schools. Useless details – useless.

Lest you think I am advocating blindly striking out I am not. A history lesson you won’t read in Leeden or anyone on the left.

On August 24, 1814 the British entered Washington DC and burned the buildings that housed the Senate, the House of Representatives and the Library of Congress to the ground. The British troops then entered the offices of a Washington newspaper intending to destroy it, but decided not to. The British troops then turned to the White House and burned it to the ground. The British also burned the Treasury Building. We burned the Washington Navy Yards to prevent the British from capturing the stores of ammunition there. The British captured Alexandria Virginia, but did not destroy it.

Later in the day a tornado blew through Washington killing many Americans and British troops. The British withdrew. That was the end of the siege of Washington.

When Monroe was elected President his Monroe Doctrine was one of the responses of America to its accumulated experiences of being occupied and attacked by British forces. To make sure that European powers would never again, no matter what their temptations,come close enough to America to act on hostile intentions, all of Latin America was declared off limits to European powers.

The over reach of such a notion (all of Latin America, no European powers allowed) is exactly the kind of policy that is an expression of American Sovereignty and a fundamental requirement of American Security. This same over reach is why for a single invasion of Pearl Harbor we brought Japan to her knees. We didn’t have to. We could have ended that theater of war earlier – leaving the Emperor and his regime intact.

And it wasn’t maliciousness either why we demanded nothing less than the complete destruction of that regime. It was that Japan NEVER AGAIN even think of such actions.

This is what is missing in our War on Terror. They will destroy us, if we let them.

The timing of this event is a key to this administration’s flawed policies. Our ignorant blind biased media is so wrapped up with the event so much so that they willingly and by calculation ignore what is happening in Syria right now.
Just today in Syria:
“Six people have been killed – five in Homs and one in Hama – while a prominent dissident has been arrested, human rights activists say.”

The fact is that Obama administration NEEDS to keep both Syria and Iran’s brutal regimes IN POWER!!! No doubt about that. The silent treatment of the daily atrocities in the streets of Tehran and Damascus by this administration is deafening and shameful. There is no doubt the administration’s policy is to safeguard the regimes of Assad and Islamic Republic. They suffice to once in a while condemnation and expression of “serious concern” but again they have expressed serious concerns for 30+ years and still no real bite. It is fast becoming a real joke and outright lie!!! Free people will never forget!

Sorry to be a party pooper as y’all collectively celebrate Osama’s death. But has anyone demanded to know if he was mirandaized before being shot? Or was written consent obtained from him prior to cranial transfiguration, which by definition is invasive? Absent a video with sound one will not know the answer. So, don’t you think that is the reason the President will not release a video lest Eric Holder gets hold (ahem) of it?

Nice doubts brainstorm on data here Michael.I hope JJA to be continue this saga on uncleared situations.
OBL,ISI,and the next moves in Iran suggest terra incognita along Saudi Arabia,Syria and the rest of the Islamic world.
And Africa of course.
But just now,and doubts off for just a little bit,the peril was not removed.

1. I have never believed that AQ was an independent organization. I think the best guess is that when it was exiled from Somalia to Afghanistan, it was adopted by Iraqi intelligence in cooperation with ISI, which was and is running the Taliban.

2. At some point a few years ago, ISI was left with the whole ball of wax. It was probably they who decided to rat out Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the brutal Palestinian who was running the Iraq operation. By that time it was clear that a Sunni government was not going to be established in Iraq, and ISI did not want to run the risk of provoking the Iranians.

3. I credit the report that OBL was living in Abbottobad for several years. It makes perfect sense, with ISI running things, OBL was a 5th wheel, and, he was “retired” and told to work on his memoirs. OBL was not running AQ with out coms or an office that had them. Besides, if OBL were important they would have at least provided him with bodyguards.

5. Did ISI rat OBL out? Most likely, What better way to get the US out of the neighborhood. Now, Obama can now declare the war won and exit. And they got the $50 million. And OBL is a martyr who can be summoned up to motivate the rabble when necessary.

6. BO probably bargained for three steps to the door. I.E. the US winds down the Afghanistan operation, and Pakistan keeps the Taliban on a leash and the Karzai government in place until after November 2012.

7. I despise and disrespect BO and don’t agree with him on anything, but that would not be a bad deal. Clearly, the war in Afghanistan is a war against Pakistan, and it cannot be won, or even properly fought without an all out attack on Pakistan. We cannot do that right now because our soldiers are behind enemy lines — literally. Get our soldiers out of Afghanistan, and we can deal with the Pakistanis from our bomber base on Diego Garcia.